User talk:C.ronaldo3006

WP:3RR and Jelly bean

PLease read this policy. You have reverted three times today. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jelly bean. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Melsaran (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a question !

Hi. Thanks for telling me about the 3 revert rule. I didn't know about it. I'd like to know something though; why do you people always revert my articles eventhough I quote credible sources? Also, England psychologically lost the game due to the jelly bean thing. And, who scientifically proved that Ganguly was the bad-boy of cricket (Sledging article)? With all due respect to your contributions, I think your edits SLANT the articles in favour of a particular set of people. It seems that the whole truth is being censored on purpose. All coins have two sides. Then why are you people supressing one side of the story eventhough I add credible sources as proof? Why can't we have a HEALTHY debate, coz I don't wanna play "edit-edit". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C.ronaldo3006 (talk • contribs) 07:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Indeed you have provided credible sources. But the main issue here that me and the other folks are citing is WP:N. We don't feel that these incidents has passed the test of time yet to know if they are important enough examples to be used. We do not know that England lost because of the jellybean. We do know that Zaheer Khan said that the jellybeans fired him up and cited that as being a big performance. The batsmen had already got a 280 run lead when this incident happened. Your edit asserted it as fact that the game was decided by teh beans. This cannot be shown. I did not say that Ganguly was the bad boy. It simply noted that the Australian media demonised (wrongly in my opinion, it was just jingoistic barracking per all sport newspapers) - that instance and Ranatunga for instance are quite notable because they riled the Australians, won and it was still talked of years later..... We do not know yet if the jellybean thing will still be talked about during the next series between India and England, but whenever India play Australia, Ganguly's brinkmanship is always noted. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)